Last week American Atheists, Inc. filed a lawsuit seeking what has been dubbed the “World Trade Center Cross” to be either removed from the National September 11 Memorial and Museum or to be joined by their symbol, along with other non-Christian symbols. They call the cross “an insult to every non-Christian survivor of the attack” and the four individual plaintiffs allege they have suffered “dyspepsia, depression, headaches, anxiety and mental pain and anguish from the knowledge…they are made to feel officially excluded from the ranks of citizens who were directly injured by the 9/11 attack…”

Before I had this platform to voice at least some of my concerns on a monthly basis, my television screen was in daily jeopardy of getting a shoe thrown through it. If you are similarly frustrated about the direction of our country and do not have such an outlet, I feel your pain. That is the reason I take this opportunity so seriously. That is also the reason why I urge you to thoroughly educate yourself before you trash your own credibility.

Last week’s Supreme Court decision in Plata v. Brown affirmed a lower court injunction that will practically require the release of approximately 26% of California’s current prison population (40,000) by May 23, 2013. I say “practically” because, although the decision requires a reduction from the state’s current volume of nearly 200% of facility design capacity to a maximum of 137.5% (and, therefore, could be achieved by an increase in prison construction with no reduction in the guest list), it is no surprise that California, like many states, is broke. New prisons are not on the horizon.

If you would like an honest answer to questions concerning the constitutionality of legislation or executive branch decisions, steer clear of any lawyer who graduated from a prestigious law school, has taught constitutional law and is Democratic politician. Ouch! That last “unqualification” might hurt a bit. Although I don’t shy away from criticizing Republicans, it has been my studied observation that one is more likely to get a trustworthy answer from a Republican than from a Democrat when it comes to presidential war powers.

The first reading of the United States Constitution in the House of Representatives last month caused some to question its relevance in today’s world. How could the supreme law of the land, complete with provisions allowing Americans to change it whenever their proposal is strong enough to persuade representatives in sufficient numbers to do so, possibly amount to anything less than the essence of contemporary relevance?

The last two sentences of the Star-Spangled Banner are well known: “O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave o’er the land of the free and the home of the brave? Play ball.”

I saw Stan Musial play his last game in Sportsman’s Park and remember paying attention to the words of our national anthem, wondering how anyone could understand freedom without visiting the “land of the unfree,” wherever that was.

It has now been one month since the hard work of everyday Americans paid off in the mid-term elections and turned this nation back from the precipice of the type of collapse we are witnessing all across Europe. Over the past year, I have seen firsthand how much work and resolve it takes for citizens to run their own country. These folks decided they could make a difference, but it took a commitment from them they were not used to making. They passed the first test with flying colors. We are now facing challenges as a nation that will test our mettle to the maximum.

Midterm elections were about voters choosing freedom, not any one piece of legislation.

As I write this piece, the results of Tuesday’s elections are not known. But, I will go out on a rock-hard foot-thick limb and conclude that the actual results support the notion that today is the day after Americans took a stand for freedom. I say “actual” loosely.